Back
C. HARI SHANKAR
Four Pillars Enterprises Co. Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Mahipal Jain – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. This judgment decides IA 12686/2023, whereby the plaintiff has sought an interlocutory injunction, pending disposal of the present suit CS (Comm) 472/2023, restraining the defendants, and all others acting on their behalf, from using the marks REINDEER BRAND, 
, 
, 
, and REINDEER WONDER in respect of any goods or services, or any other mark which may be confusingly or deceptively similar to the plaintiff's registered DEER Device marks including 
and 
marks.
Rival Contentions
Submissions of Mr. Anirudh Bakhru for the plaintiff
2. The case of the plaintiff, as articulated by Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, learned Counsel, is as under:
(i) The plaintiff, a company established in Taiwan in 1954, manufactures adhesive tapes and labels. It is the proprietor of the trade Marks
(a) , in Class 17, for "PVC Insulating Tape, Adhesives Tape, Water Sticking Tape", w.e.f. 18 July 1985, on "proposed to be used" basis, and
(b) , in Class 17, for "Adhesive tape for industrial and commercial use namely, adhesive sealing tape for use in machines or pipelines for preventing gas or liquid from leakage, PVC insulating tape, PVC duct tape, Double-sided adhesive tape, self-fusing tape, polyester tape, polyamide t
The main legal point established in the judgment is the likelihood of confusion as a key factor in determining trademark infringement under Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act. The judgment also cla....
Where a trade mark contains generic or common-to-trade terms, the proprietor cannot claim exclusive rights over those specific words. Comparison of marks for infringement must be done as a whole; if ....
Generic and descriptive terms in trademarks cannot be exclusively claimed, and likelihood of confusion must be assessed holistically from the average consumer's perspective.
Important Point :The use of a trademark that is phonetically and visually similar to a registered trademark can lead to confusion, constituting infringement, especially when dishonest conduct is evid....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the protection of trademarks, the likelihood of confusion or deception arising from the similarity of marks, and the prima facie case of infringeme....
The court affirmed the registered trademark holder's rights against similar marks and clarified standards for proving prior use and confusion under trademark law.
Ex-parte ad-interim injunction vacated for suppression of material facts in trademark infringement suit; plaintiff must disclose fully prior ownership, adverse orders, relationships with clean hands;....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
